Publisher of Atlas In Error About Greenland Climate Change

get causes updates

A new, 13th edition of the Times Atlas of the World was released last week and immediately sparked a controversy over its incorrect map of Greenland. The atlas that dubs itself the world’s “most authoritative” had make a huge mistake, claiming that 15 percent of Greenland’s permanent ice cover — an area the size of the UK and Ireland — had melted since 1999, when the last edition of the atlas was published. A widely distributed September 15th news release added to the confusion.

The Guardian shows both the 1999 map and the incorrect one in the new edition of the atlas.

Glaciologists, mindful of a 2007 United Nations report that erroneously said in a footnote that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, swiftly swung into action last weekend. The scientists asserted via every form of media — radio, blogs, newspaper columns — that 15 percent of Greenland’s ice cover has not disappeared since 1999. The ice sheet is decreasing, but at a rate that is more akin to 0.1 percent by volume over twelve years:

…seven researchers at Cambridge University’s Scott Polar Research Institute backed by glaciologists in the US, Europe and elsewhere, have said that both the maps and the figure of 15% are wrong.

In a letter to the editors of the Times Atlas they agree that the Greenland ice cover is reducing but at nowhere near the extent claimed in the book…A new, 13th edition of the Times Atlas of the World was released last week and immediately sparked a controversy for its incorrect map of Greenland.

“Numerous glaciers have retreated over the last decade. Because of this retreat, many glaciers are now flowing faster and terrain previously ice-covered is emerging along the coast – but not at the rate suggested. Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands.”

The Times Atlas is published by Times Books, an imprint of HarperCollins that is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s Manhattan-based News Corporation.

Researchers offered this explanation for what Jeffrey Kargel, a senior researcher at the University of Arizona, labeled a “killer mistake”:

Several researchers said the atlas’s authors may have confused ice thickness with ice extent, defining the ice sheet margin at 500m high (the contour) and colouring brown and pink anything below 500m. “They [seem to] show the contour as ice thickness, colouring in everything white that is above 500m. They appear to have missed out the edge of the ice sheet,” said Ian Willis, researcher at the Scott Polar Research Institute.

On reflection and in discussion with the scientific community, the current map does not make the explanation of this topic as clear as it should be. We are now urgently reviewing the depiction of ice in the Atlas against all the current research and data available, and will work with the scientific community to produce a map of Greenland which reflects all the latest data.

Fortunately, thanks to scientists’ fast reaction, “Atlasgate” has been avoided. HarperCollins still insists that there is ”‘no clarity’ in the scientific and cartographic community on the issue of Greenland’s ice cover”: Glaciologists had best remain on the alert.

What, a publisher owned by Rupert M. erred on the side of climate change?

Its called follow the money, the billions have created a lot of support. give me $10,000 and I will start posting that this scam is not a scam but the sea is rising(its not) and people are causing major changes(they arent). Follow the money.

Andrew, yes they are naturally occuring as has ALL the climate change we have experienced over the existence of this planet. And even though you say it "has been accounted for" still is no proof that the effect man-caused global warming is in any way significant, impactful, or even controllable.

Yes, of course we have an impact, everything on earth has impact, and there is so much that has impact that is uncontrollable, that when you look at the insignificant nature of man-made causes, the effects get lost in the minutia.

And add to that the controllable aspects of human causes are so uncontrollable that anything we could to to change it would be negligible and definitely NOT worthy of the damages being devised to achieve that end.

Why do people like to say the planet is dying? It is alive and well, despite the recent changes in the climate. If anything, it's simply going through a brief caused by human influence, and if we don't stop raising the temperature, the planet will just sweat us out and go right on with its life.

Well said, Sandra and Andrew - and I haven't even clicked to view all comments yet.

Of course, the deniers ignore the main point about this forgettable incident. The non-scientists (or, at least, non-climatologists) who assembled and published the Atlas erred. The scientists quickly acted to correct that error. That is what science is supposed to do, and it did it. Such scientists, the vast majority of scientists, regard human-caused climate change as proven and profound in its consequences. Deniers ignore that fact, but they seize on scientists doing their job by objectively correcting this error by non-scientists as proof of their own fear- or greed-driven fantasies. In other words, they believe in science when it tells them (sort of) what they want to believe, but not when it tells them what they don't want to believe.

Like error, denial is part of human nature; and both share the characteristic of misrepresenting reality.

As to "following the money," Scott, I'm sure Big Oil and Coal would pay - and do pay - very well for any scientist willing to surrender his or her integrity and spout their lies. Fortunately, most scientists refuse to do so.